Tebbit's ideas

Scan page 8

The Green Paper trots out again to justify its case, the same distortions which underpinned previous legislation. ''Trade union power" we are told "springs from legal immunities and privileges". Tebbit marvels at "the unique legal status which trade unions enjoy". Yet Tebbit himself has ensured in earlier legislation a reversion to the very, very limited "privileges" and immunities trade unions possessed How can union power be based on 'legal privileges' ', when you can be sued in the High Court if you stand on a picket line 100 yards away from your workplace and peaceably persuade a lorry driver not to deliver? Trade unionists do not even have the privilege of freedom of speech.

How can union power be based on legal privileges when the union bodies who asked their members to come out on could have been dragged before the judges, as Sean Geraghty was, for inducing breach of contract? Trade unionists do not ever have the freedom to choose to withdraw their labour.

How can union power be based on legal privileges when if 20 workers take industrial action the law guarantees to the employer the right to sack them? Trade unionists in Britain today do not have even the right to strike.

They do possess a fairly "unique legal status": Trade union rights on such issues as protection against dismissal, redundancy, and lay off, are among the worst in Europe. Provisions for women, such as the Equal Pay and Maternity legislation, have been condemned as inadequate by the EEC. .

Tebbit's current proposals are in violation of the International Labour Organisation Convention's very minimal codes to which all civilised governments are expected to measure up.

ILO convention 87, for example, states "workers and employers organisations shall have the right to draw up their own constitutions and rules to elect their representatives in full freedom to organPalater INDUSTR

Scan page 9

It's difficult enough to get the ise their administration anc activities and to formulate their programmes.

It goes on to say 'The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof."

Yet Tebbit would walk into union rule making bodies and violate their autonomy by making their rules for them. The ILO Freedom of Association Committee has stated "to impose any obligation on a trade union to base its constitution on a compulsory model (apart from purely formal clauses) would be to disregard the rules which ensure freedom of association."

Yet Tebbit by imposing a central method of decision making - the secret postal baliot - at the expense of the variety of methods unions use now would impose a compulsory model which would involve far from formal clauses.

If Tebbit is confused on union power and legal privileges he is all at sea on internal union democracy.

"Time and again," he points out, "union leaders are seen to be out of touch with the rank and file and often appear to be neither representative of the majority of their members nor directly responsible to them."

But, alas, Tebbit isn't taiking about Sid Weighell, who secretly switched the NUR block vote at the Labour Farty conference, perverting ine democratic decision of his members. He isn't talking about Sid breaking NUR rules by Tebbit isn't worried where the unrepresentauve nature or union leaders ana their lack of responsibility to their members leads to policies of which he approves, crucially an opposition to industrial action.

This is the central point. Tebbịt isn't interested in how useful certain changes in the unions might be in allowing the true voice of the members to be heard. He is interested in how useful they might be in producing collaboration at the top and in preventing strikes.

For example, the Green Paper discusses the possibility of allowing a certain group of members to ask for a strike ballot. But it then points out the problems "where union leadership is weak, triggered ballots might be used by militants to force the hand of more responsible leaders"

So now "responsible leaders" are those who ignore the wishes of their members. Weak leaders are those who can't get away with it!

Strike ballots, we are told, ..."generally become a test of solidarity and of support for the trade union leadership and policies and so far from bringing disputes to an end may ... prolong them"

And that's the whole point. The Green Paper is called "Democracy in Trade Unions". It should be called 'How to Stop Strikes and Weaken Trade 20a0.... out comes a flood of 10ps. You are not interested in how the machine runs. That's their job.

Until you realise that the 10ps are 2 ps; and that you can't, in the best traditions of text-book business unionism, simply march off to another fruit machine. But that's another story, as the London Press branch are finding out.

Unlike Frank and Terry and Norman, socialists don't want a passive, quiescent membership. Unlike them, we believe that if you don't do things for yourseif, you will not only get second best because your leaders' interests may be a wee bit different from yours, but that over time you will forget what first best is and be only too glad to get what you are given.

Socialists believe that the more workers are active, take an interest, and participate together, then the better off they will be. The less workers participate, the less active they are, the less they will be able to control the Franks and Terrys of this world. They will get less, and Frank and Terry will have more power.

Of course it's not only that. The more workers act together collectively, by for example, striking against the boss, the more they will see and understand of how the bosses really are; of the conflict between their own interests and those of the bosses; of how the interests of all bosses are linked; and the more they will be open to the arguments of the socialists that the whole system must be changed.

The 'Daily Excess', which he reads, will tell him to vote for Frank. He won't hear the argument against Frank. He'll think about his mortgage and then he'll look up at the telly and see Frank - and he'll vote for him!

And if it's a strike that he's voting on, he's likely to vote against, if we follow this system. It's unbeatable.

Nobody likes going on strike. There are all sorts of fears and anxieties.

Workers left isolated are prey to insecurity. They tend to look at the issue more from an individual than from a collective point of view.

weakest when they are broken up and atomised. They are at their strongest when they are grouped together collectively. When they can vote after meetings, where the issues involved have been explained, thrashed out, debated, workers are in a position to take an educated decision.

When workers vote at work, they are in a better position to consider their collective interests, what binds them together, than when they vote at home.

Democracy is not just a matter of voting. Democracy, real democracy, is a matter of activity, participation, education. SPECIAL But even if you get a bigger vote in a postal than a branch or workplace ballot, the quality of the vote in terms of interest,, involvement, commitment, the mainspring on which any healthy trade unionism depends for its ultimate survival, is less.

Tebbit is not interested in real democracy. He is aware that the limitation of Parliamentary democracy, going to the polling booth and sticking your cross against one of the three names, has over the years made generations of workers fatalistic and cynical.

Between elections they can do nothing as they have no control over events. Far from involving them the system aims to disinvolve them. They take little interest in politicians. They leave it to the professionals.

Now Tebbit wants to do this to the unions, except this time he'll do the job properly. You won't even need to walk to the polling boota.

You will notice his interest in extending democracy does not run to elections for the monarchy, or the House of Lords, or the judiciary, or to the election of the leader of the Tory Party by all its members.

Even in the Green Paper, the proposals for postal ballots only apply to the situation where bodies and officials are already elected.

If you are appointed that's OK.

Only 70% of the membership elected Arthur Scargill. But 0% of the membership elected all the NUPE officials, all the TGWU officials and all the EETPU officials. There are no proposals to remedy this in the Green Paper.

The government's position, like that of the media, the employers and certain union leaders, is in fact one of hypocrisy, not democracy.

The idea behind their proposals is not a concern or utmucracy fon Anmenanon hurt a haliaf that this technique will help to mobilise a backward majority, isolated from the activists and force fed one side of the case.

In a society where the media are controlled lock, stock and barrel by the employers the postal ballot is a favourable terrain for persuasion in the interests of the employers.

Indeed in any proper election the one-sided interventions of the Woodrow Wyatts and the Bernard Levins would be regarded as illicit abuse of the electoral system.

But apparently, according to some union leaders, illicit abuse is coming not from the harlots of Fleet Street but from the socialists within the unions. Tebbit started last November. "I have taken advice from a number of people on this, and particularly from the man who said for more years than I care to remember that the extreme left have been intriguing, lying, and manipulating the votes of trade unions, Frank Chapple. it is time that we helped him." on Frank Chapple's successor: « reported Later the Financial Times reported 'Mr Eric Hammond making his first public appearance as general secretary elect of the EETPU yesterday welcomed in advance government support for secret postal ballots for union executives and leading officials...

Not only is there a strong base which supports Tebbit's ideas within the union leadership; they do not believe in half

----- pull-quotes -----

Atomised In ou society, the workers are at their